Judgment summary
The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) considered an application by HMRC to strike out an appeal brought by H.Q. Foods (B'Ham) Limited against Post Clearance Demand Notes (C18s) totalling £47,922.76 for Customs Duty (1).
The appellant had not paid or deposited the duty in dispute, and its hardship application was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal on 10 December 2025. HMRC conceded that if the appellant could prove that ring-fenced funds had been released, the duty would be treated as paid, and the Tribunal directed payment by noon on 24 December 2025 (9-11).
The appellant did not pay by that deadline, and instead attempted to rely on a bank guarantee process. The Customs Duty was eventually paid on 9 January 2026, after the deadline had passed (40-44).
The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under section 16(3) Finance Act 1994 because the duty had not been paid or deposited by the deadline, and struck out the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (61-63). The Tribunal also found, under Rule 8(3)(c), that the substantive appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, referring in particular to a letter from the appellant's exporter confirming that preferential treatment did not apply at the relevant time (65-71).
Background
The appellant imported tinned fish roe from an exporter, Amanda Roe, in Denmark, which its freight agents had declared as entitled to preferential treatment under the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement and/or the Agreement on Trade in Goods between Iceland, Norway and the UK (16-17).
During post-clearance checks, HMRC's officer found that the relevant invoices stated the products were 'NOT of preferential origin' (19). On 26 June 2024, HMRC decided the Goods did not qualify for preferential treatment, and issued C18s on 1 July 2024 (£22,179.37) and 8 July 2024 (£25,743.89), totalling £47,922.76 (2, 20).
A Review Conclusion letter dated 6 September 2024 upheld the C18s and confirmed the debt was due under section 4(1) of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (TCTA), with the appellant liable under section 6 (21). The appellant appealed to the Tribunal on 18 September 2024 without paying the duty or making a hardship application, though the Notice of Appeal wrongly stated a hardship application had been made (4, 22).
Core dispute
The dispute concerned whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal given the appellant's failure to pay or deposit the disputed Customs Duty under section 16(3) Finance Act 1994, following dismissal of its hardship application (3, 61-63).
HMRC applied to strike out the appeal under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, relying on lack of jurisdiction, failure to comply with Tribunal directions, and absence of any reasonable prospect of success on the substantive appeal (1, 50, 64-65).
The appellant argued that delays in payment were due to its bank, the Agent's workload, and language difficulties for its directors, and separately argued that the C18 assessments were unfair (72-78).
Court findings
The Tribunal found that the hardship application had properly been dismissed, as the appellant had failed to provide required financial evidence despite repeated requests (37-38). It found that HMRC's concession to allow payment by 24 December 2025 was generous, and that the appellant failed to take advantage of it (56, 61).
Because the Customs Duty was not paid or deposited by the deadline, the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under section 16(3) Finance Act 1994, and that strike out under Rule 8(2)(a) was mandatory (61-63).
The Tribunal also found that the substantive appeal had no realistic prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c), referring to the Amanda Letter confirming that preferential treatment did not apply in 2024, and to invoices stating the products were 'NOT of preferential origin' (65-71).
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's explanations for delay, including busyness of the Agent, bank delays, and language difficulties, noting the appellant's Manager gave clear evidence in English (73-77). It also held it had no jurisdiction to consider arguments that the assessments were unfair (78).
Outcome
HMRC's application for strike out was granted and the appeal was struck out (79).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal given non-payment of the disputed Customs Duty under section 16(3) Finance Act 1994.
- Whether the appellant's hardship application had been properly dismissed due to lack of financial evidence.
- Whether HMRC's concession allowing payment by 24 December 2025 had been complied with.
- Whether failure to comply with Tribunal directions justified strike out under Rule 8(3)(a).
- Whether the substantive appeal had any reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c), given evidence that preferential treatment did not apply in 2024.
- Whether the appellant's explanations for delay (bank delays, agent workload, language difficulties) excused non-compliance.
- Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider arguments that the assessments were unfair.